Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Sarah Palin pretends to be a reformer, but here is a TV commercial from her 2006 campaign for governor in which newly-convicted (hooray!) Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens heaps praise upon the folk(sy) hero.

As a preview of tonight's State Senate debate at St. Francis College between Democratic nominee Dan Squadron and his Republican challenger John Chromczak, The Optimist presents the following interview. While some may perceive the fact that I have only interviewed one of the candidates as bias on my part, to be accurate, this interview stemmed from an earlier blog posting in which I had stated that it was a foregone conclusion that Squadron would win this race after besting longtime Democratic incumbent Marty Connor in the primary.

It was then that I received an email from Chromczak's spokesman, reminding me that Squadron had a Republican opponent and that it would be both unfair and undemocratic to simply count him out of the race. I agreed with this reasoning. Despite the overwhelming statistical odds of a Republican winning in Brownstone Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, particularly in a year that is shaping up to be so profoundly anti-Republican, it is always in the best interest of the people for us to understand all our options in the voting booth, so we can make the most educated decision possible.

Hence, the following interview. For my part, I am happy to have conducted it. Chromczak, an unconventional candidate in many ways, gave frank answers to all of my tough questions, which ranged from the recent extension of term limits to how Chromczak can reconcile being openly gay with being a Republican. Give Chromczak's answers a read. I think you might be surprised with what he has to say.

The Optimist: One of your most prominent campaign promises entails fighting for term limits in Albany. Does this mean that you are appalled by Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council's move to extend their time in office for another four years?

John Chromczak: Appalled isn’t the word, it’s more like disgusted.I personally believe that nothing is more sacred in a secular society than the right of a person, in the privacy of a voting booth, to have their voices heard and their vote count.The mayor and the City Council have disrespected the people of New York by ignoring their decision on this issue.I believe it undermines the democratic process.If they wanted to extend their terms they should have put it before the voters and let us make the decision.

The Optimist:Why do you think of your opponent Daniel Squadron and why do you believe you'll be a better State Senator than him?

Chromczak: I have meet Dan a few times and also debated him once. [Chromczak and Squadron will meet for another debate at St.FrancisCollege tonight at 8 p.m. – Ed.] He seems to be a nice person but I believe he’s running for office for all the wrong reasons. I’m running because I’m tired of all the political pandering, the selling out to special interests, and the abysmal economic policies promoted by both parties. I don’t come from a political family or class; I haven’t sought the endorsements of any unions – including my own 1199/UFCW and AFM – or other groups because I want to run a clean campaign. I want to be free of any undue influence that truly doesn’t help the community, the city, or the state. Unlike my opponent, nearly all of my volunteers come from people within the community.

I would be a better State Senator because I will bring real world experience, as opposed to bureaucratic experience, to Albany. I live the blue-collar middle class life.I see how failed policies affect me, my family, and my neighbors. I also have the benefit of having lived in different parts of the state, so I have a better understanding of how the different regional socioeconomic realities are intertwined with one another.That’s a perspective that is sorely needed in Albany.

The Optimist: You only moved to New York City three years ago. What makes you think that you know the City well enough to represent it in government?

Chromczak: Like millions of others, I moved to NYC to create a better life for myself and to explore all the possibilities that the city could provide. I live in one of the fastest growing residential communities in the U.S. I want to help shape what it is going to become in the future. I’ve meet thousands of people from very different neighborhoods across the Senate district and I’ve listened to what their concerns are; some are the same (education, housing, transportation), while others are different (views on congestion pricing). My opponent has said that once he’s elected, “He’s going to go across the district to hear what people’s concerns are.” Isn’t that something he should have been doing already? My point is, I’ve lived hear for nearly four years, I’m a native New Yorker, I understand the issues because I’ve talked to voters, I’ve studied the issues, and I’ve tried to develop policies that find solutions to our problems. I believe that is what makes a strong leader, someone who has the will to make a difference.

The Optimist: The majority of the issues and videos on your website focus either on citywide concerns or the Manhattan portion of your district. What specifically would you do for Brooklyn?

Chromczak: Since I’m running for state office I have tried to emphasize those areas that a State Senator could have influence over. Some of the issues that would specifically affect Brooklyn are:

1)Removing the cap on the number of charter schools. The fact is charter schools have show to be highly effective, especially in minority communities.

2)Fighting for stronger legislation that imposes stronger prison terms on sex offenders. According to a study performed by Rep. Weiner’s office last year, there are nearly 2200 registered L2 and L3 sex offenders in NYC, over 700 of those live within KingsCounty, and over 200 of those offenders live within five hundred feet of a school. This is highly disturbing to me. There is nothing more precious or important in a society than the safety of our children, yet Albany has not had the courage to deal with this issue more effectively.

3)Congestion Pricing. I have no doubt that this issue will come up again in the future. I don’t support it because I haven’t seen one published economic impact study for the residents that would be affected by such a fee. It also isn’t going to decreases the amount of traffic on the BQE, which, according to some studies, is a cause of high asthma rates in certain areas of Brooklyn.

4)I would pressure City Hall to stop the opening of the Brooklyn HOD.This is a perfect example of government not keeping up with the changing demographics of local communities.The area surround the HOD has become increasingly more residential with more retail businesses opening up.I believe reopening the prison is going to detrimental to the growing Brooklyn Heights/Cobble Hill community.

The Optimist:Ground Zero is within your Senate district and you say in one of your YouTube videos that you will make sure that Lower Manhattan is rebuilt properly if you are elected. Who do you think is to blame for the fact that seven years after 9/11 so little reconstruction has been accomplished?

Chromczak: The mayor, the governor (Pataki and Spitzer), Speaker Silver, State Senator Connor. All of these elected officials had numerous opportunities to ensure that the construction and development of the WTC site (and the Fulton Street Subway Station) was done within specific budget outlines and within a certain time frame. Instead, all we had was talk, talk, talk. The right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing.Everyone wanted to go to ribbon cuttings, but nobody wanted to take any responsibility for what was happening at the site. The LMDC has been a complete and total waste of taxpayers’ money with nearly no oversight by the elected officials, who represent the community. The bottom line is the development of the WTC has been mismanaged by both the city and state governments. I’ve supported Gov. Paterson in his leadership to move the project along and I’m looking forward to learning more about PA Director Ward’s reports on defining the problems and subsequent solutions to the WTC development.

The Optimist: Statistically, registered Democrats in Brooklyn and, to a lesser extent, Manhattan overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans. The majority is so great that it is widely believed that, with the exception of the Bay Ridge area and the Mayoralty, whoever wins the Democratic Primary is the de facto winner of the General Election. With the numbers so staggeringly against you, why bother running as a Republican?

Chromczak: I’m a Republican because I believe in certain ideals and values that the Republican Party has always supported: fiscal responsibility, strong public safety policies, supporting small businesses, and individual freedoms. There are roughly 200,000 registered voters in the 25th SD, yet only 30 to 40% have come out to vote in any given election for State Senator. That means the majority of voters really don’t identify with the candidates on the ballot, so they don’t come out to vote. Also, I think the Democratic Party has disenfranchised some of their own voters in the district, so there is an opportunity to get some crossover support for a Republican candidate.

There are also an increasingly large number of registered blank (independents) who may not necessarily support a Democratic agenda, yet have no choice in who they would vote for. There hasn’t been a serious Republican candidate in the 25th Senate District in over 30 years. I’ve changed that. I’ve given people a choice. I’ve put forward issues that are important to me and to many people across Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan.

The Optimist:In recent years, the New YorkState Republican Party has suffered a series of devastating blows. Democrats regained the governorship, the lone New York City Republican in Congress was brought down by scandal, and now the GOP is in real danger of losing control of the State Senate for the first time in decades. What does the State Republican Party have to do to revitalize itself and stay relevant?

Chromczak: Fred U. Dicker wrote in a column in the New York Post a while back that the Republicans have become “doppelgangers” of the Democratic Party. In many respects, that is true.Voters across the state don’t see a difference between one or the other, so their votes are based on personality over policy differences. I’m working to change that.

The governorship has always flipped back and forth between Republican and Democrat so chances are there will be another Republican governor at some point. As for the Senate, I think in many areas the party has lost touch not only with our base, but also with the voters. Until we come back to our roots and show the people of NY that there are significant differences between our two parties Republicans are going to continue to lose elections across the state.

The Optimist:As a Republican, did you feel betrayed by Mayor Bloomberg's decision to leave your party?

Chromczak: Mike wasn’t a Republican until he decided to run for mayor. After he won a second election he had no use for the Republican brand, so he dumped it. I don’t feel betrayed, but I am disappointed.But, what can I say, money has a lot of influence in politics.

The Optimist: Although groups like the Log Cabin Republicans exist, the national platform of your party has been consistently intolerant of homosexuality. How do you reconcile being gay and being a Republican?

Chromczak: There isn’t anything to reconcile. I’m a Republican, because of my views on the function and purpose of government, on taxes, on public safety, on the role of the courts, etc. Like any family, we, Republicans, have some family disputes or disagreements. But I’m not going to abandon my party over one or two specific issues.I’m going to work from within to change those attitudes in my own party.

Who supports continuing the cycle of shame and staying “in the closet” by supporting the federal policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? The Democrats. Is that inclusive? Who voted for and signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act? Senator Schumer and President Clinton. I don’t know of one legislative body controlled by Democrats (Massachusetts, for example) who have written, passed, and signed into law a gay marriage equality bill.They’ve abdicated their legislative responsibility and given it to the courts in hopes that they won’t have to deal with the issue.That’s not standing up for the gay community.

At least I’m not afraid to fight for my own community on this issue.I’m not saying one thing and doing another.

The Optimist: Like many Republicans, you call yourself a fiscal conservative, yet under the stewardship of the Bush Administration; America has run up record deficits and fallen into its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Do you think that the Republican Party still represents fiscal conservatism?

Chromczak: The President and Congress are both equally responsible for the current economic crisis that we’re experiencing. Congress got lax on their oversight of Fannie and Freddie and the President let government spending on pork barrel projects get completely out of control.

As for Republicans living up to their mantra of fiscal conservatism and responsibility?They’ve let much to be desired and it’s shown in losses at the voting booth.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Not that public statements mean anything any more (like Mayor Bloomberg calling the extension of term limits a "disgrace"), but if Betsy Gotbaum holds true to her word that she won't seek reelection as Public Advocate in 2009, it's good news for New Yorkers.

It means we might finally get a Public Advocate, who, well, advocates for the public. The Public Advocate position, created originally to give Mark Green something to do, theoretically is supposed to be a check to the Mayor's power. The Advocate is the City's watchdog, the person who makes a ruckus for the people when they are being railroaded by their elected officials.

Where was Betsy last week when our City's government was stolen away from the people? Sitting docilely in the presiding officer's chair of Council chambers, urging our Council Members to be polite as they subverted the system.

Of course, for anyone following Gotbaum's horrendous seven year tenure, this was no surprise. Our City's ferocious "watchdog" curled up on the Mayor's lap on day one of the Bloomberg Administration and hasn't moved since. Can anyone come up with a single instance where Gotbaum even so much as whimpered token opposition to the Mayor? Even her own website can't come up with anything to boast except vague platitudes.

We need a real Public Advocate now more than ever. As impotent as the position has been to date, one of the only chances our City has to protect itself from its incumbents at this point might be the Public Advocate.

Fortunately, we already seem to have two promising candidates, who would make something of the job if elected. The first is Norman Siegel, a lawyer who has made his career crusading of behalf of the downtrodden and disenfranchised.

The second is Queens Councilman Eric Gioia. Gioia is a young, fiercely ambitious politician, who understands how to command the media's attention. He was on the right side of the term limits battle and has generally shown himself to be a populist. He might not have the track record of taking on "The Man" that Siegel can rightfully claim, but I could see him zealously amassing political points while beating down injustice in the way Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo have wielded the State Attorney General job.

Whoever the people's ultimate choice may be, New York can't afford another Betsy Gotbaum. We need a fighter, not a lover.

Friday, October 24, 2008

To say that I am appalled at yesterday's Council vote is to grossly understate my reaction. Last night, I was indignant. This morning, I woke up quivering with rage.

After sitting through the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee meeting last month, I felt certain that farce would be the most ridiculous political theater of the year. But, leave it to the New York City Council to come storming back a mere month later with a production so well-orchestrated and rehearsed that it deserved Broadway's most ostentatious marquee.

At least, the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee meeting had no pretension. All of our electeds, except Charles Barron, dutifully read through the script in a homogenous monotone that laid plain the emptiness of our faux democracy. To his credit, the evening's chair Marty Connor practically admitted that our attendance was all just for show.

Contrast Connor's candor with Betsy Gotbaum, our absentee Public Advocate (talk about a term that has become Orwellian!), who only shows up when it's time to the Mayor's bidding. Rather than raging on behalf of the people, as is her job, Gotbaum dutifully presided over yesterday's sham votes, piping up only to cut our Council Members' hollow rhetoric short with the gentle admonition: "Please, Council Member, everyone else has been so good at following the rules."

Gotbaum wasted her shallow breath in chastising her kin. Practically eveyone in the chamber was playing by the rules so obediently that they all deserved a gold star for good behavior. This was an event so thoroughly scripted that I read in the Queens Crap blog in advance of the vote precisely how Anthony Como and Jessica Lappin had horse-traded their "no" votes on the amendment calling for public referendum, so they could vote a safe "no" on extending term limits legislatively.

And with whom did they collude? David Yassky, Alan Gerson, and Gail Brewer, of course. In exchange for voting down Yassky's face-saving, bogus amendment, which allowed Yassky, Gerson, and Brewer to pretend they were populists, Como gets to boast about a "no" vote to his constituents when they go to the poll in two weeks, and Lappin got to feign reformer for Upper Eastsiders, while remaining safely in the Mayor's lap.

Don't believe me? Just rewind to yesterday's press conference before the vote and see Christine Quinn hardly suppressing her glee, announcing her certainty that the amendment would fail and the term limits extension would pass. How did she know? It was all a foregone conclusion. And not just in the past couple of days. I wrote on September 25th that City Hall insiders were already sure the term limits extension was a fait accompli.

Is this to what our government has been reduced? Silly shows for the media to deceive the public? And for what? So our incompetant elected officials can further infect our City with their incompetance?

Queens Councilman Tony Avella, who has impressively distinguished himself as one of the last true warriors for the public good in this City, precisely encapsulated yesterday's travesty in the remarks he gave explaining his "no" vote:

"The people of New York know the fix was in from the beginning and I apologize to my colleagues, but you should all be voted out of office for supporting this."

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

ChangeNYC.Org, a new grassroots nonprofit organization fighting for good government in New York City, is inaugurating its progressive agenda for change with an internet ad challenging Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council’s proposed legislative change to the City’s term limits law.

The ad, featuring real New Yorkers, asks the question: “What if George W. Bush wanted a third term?”

On the website it launched today, www.changenyc.org, the nascent organization promises that it will be “growing quickly and showing you plenty of ways you can keep the energy of change thriving throughout the five boroughs and beyond.”

Monday, October 20, 2008

Come join the Brooklyn Optimist tomorrow at City Hall and speak out against changing our term limits laws. For those of you who didn't get a chance to testify during the public hearings, now is your chance.

Here's the 411:

WHAT: Elected Members of the Kings County Democratic County Committee and their constituents will be joined by Brooklyn Councilwoman Letitia James to voice their outrage over the Mayor and City Council's proposed legislative change to New York City's term limits law.

WHERE: The steps of City Hall in Manhattan

DATE: Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

TIME: 1 p.m.

Hope to see you there! Come up and introduce yourself, fearless readers.

Several times in the Council's public hearings on term limits, I heard the argument made that a legislative change of the law was fair, because if voters didn't like their elected officials they could still vote them out of office next year.

While this may be true in theory, it doesn't hold water in practice. Incumbents have an arsenal of advantages that unbalance the playing field. Among them are:

1) The ability to send out taxpayer-funded campaign literature under the guise that it is consituent outreach (notice how you never hear from them except in an election year?).

2) Having had years of disbursing "discretionary" funds to buy the praise and allegiance of area nonprofits, community organizations, etc.

3) The unspoken code of elected officials and party leaders not to endorse against one another, so that everyone can keep their jobs and enjoy the status quo.

4) The ignorance of the electorate and the power of name recognition. Since most people pay no attention to local elections, they go into the voting booth and pull the lever for whatever name is most familiar to them. Why do you think our Council Members put their names on our trash cans? (Incidentally, this type of self-serving public advertising should be banned.)

Still don't think incumbents have an unfair advantage? In 2005, 28 of the 34 Council Members up for reelection didn't face a primary opponent, which in a whoppingly Democratic city means they were effectively unchallenged. Of the six who did, four of the incumbents received more than 80% of the vote!

The only incumbent who was defeated was Southeast Queens Councilman Allan Jennings. I had the interesting experience of getting to know Jennings well when I was managing editor of The Queens Courier. I'd have enough material to fill a book if I chronicled all of the insanely bizarre (if not criminal) incidents that characterized Jennings' time in office. And that would be before I even started to interview the legions of Council Members, reporters, and constituents who quickly came to loathe, fear, or ridicule Jennings over his four years in the Council.

Even in Jennings' case, it was no mere challenger who succeeded in getting rid of him. It took Thomas White Jr., the former Councilman who was term-limited out of office in 2001 (clearing the way for Jennings), to come back to reclaim his seat.

By the way, Jennings was not just a local embarrassment. His craziness earned him the spotlight of the national media. Below is Jennings on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart calls this hilarious clip "maybe my favorite thing...ever."

Friday, October 17, 2008

Thursday evening, a man stopped Errol Louis outside of St. Francis College in Brooklyn Heights and asked The Daily News columnist if he had any investment advice he could offer in these troubled economic times. Louis considered the question for a moment, hesitant to lead the man astray. Then he answered, "Now is the time to invest in yourself."

For the audience at St. Francis College to whom Louis would recount this story a few minutes later, his advice couldn't have made more sense. This wasn't a group of corporate raiders, moguls, and CEOs, recovering from the bankrupt maxim "greed is good". No, this crowd well understood the value of money and a hard day's work: that both are valueless if not wisely invested in the infrastructure of our souls.

Louis had come as the keynote speaker for The HOPE Program's biannual graduation ceremony, which honors the admirable achievements of HOPE's students, teachers, and volunteers. HOPE is one of the City's finest nonprofits, an organization that gives New Yorkers afflicted by life's most devastating challenges the opportunity to regain their sense of self through the empowerment of gainful employment. The students at HOPE are adults of all ages, many of whom have triumphed over homelessness, drug addiction, and tragedy, thanks to the love of HOPE and the unique appreciation for life that comes from having known a life of hopelessness.

National Book Award winner Ron Chernow, another of the evening's speakers, recalled once asking one of the program's students where he would be if it weren't for HOPE. The man responded: "I'd be dead".

This is the magic of HOPE.

It is not just a program that offers exemplary counseling, professional resources, and job training. It promises its students that no matter how solitary and nasty life may seem, as long as they stick with HOPE they will never again be alone.

The program's luminous Executive Director Barbara Edwards Delsman affirmed this promise when it came time to give each of the students awards recognizing their accomplishements. Rather than first acknowledging those who had found jobs through the program, she praised those who had not yet done so. "Your tenacity inspires us," said Delsman with inspiring sincerity.

One of the students still looking for work is Marisol Carambot. Carambot has almost finished an internship at the Legal Aid Society and resonates the confidence of a woman who knows it is only a matter of time until she succeeds in every way she is determined to do so.

Only three years ago, however, Carambot was living under the Madison Avenue Bridge in Manhattan and dealing drugs on 125th Street to support her own habit. A widowed mother of two beautiful young girls, Carambot hit rock bottom when Social Services took away her children. It was then that Carambot vowed to turn around her life and get back her daughters. Fortunately, she found HOPE.

Carambot was composed and compelling while recounting her past, but it was in recognizing the boundless future ahead of her that she turned emotional. With one of her daughter's looking on from the front row of the auditorium, Carambot spoke through her tears. "Our lives have turned around at HOPE, because HOPE changes lives."

Program graduate Victor Serrano echoed Carambot's sentiments in reflecting upon his own transformation. Currently employed as a machinist who makes signs, Serrano remembered that it was an exchange he had in prison with a man sentenced to life that set him on the path to HOPE. "You know what I miss?" the prisoner confessed to Serrano. "Fridays."

Thanks to HOPE, Serrano now savors Fridays. They mean the end of another week spent doing exactly what he wants to do: work.

In the end, it was all just a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing.

As I began to approach my third hour sitting in the audience of yesterday's public hearing at City Hall on the extension of term limits, I decided to give up and go home. I had signed up to testify around 5 p.m. and realized that it would be hours more until I would get my chance to do so, once the committee chair Simcha Felder announced at 8:15 that the slate of speakers called to the microphone had submitted their names just a little past 1.

By that time, I had had my fill. I had even gotten to sit in the front row of the audience, once the first three rows were vacated by the Mayor's supporters. These passionate New Yorkers, who were (allegedly) paid by Bloomberg to crowd out citizens who had actually come to testify, finally decided they had done enough half-sleeping and limply holding up signs to satisfy their terms of employment. From this intimate vantage point, I could see Upper East Side Council Member Jessica Lappin (who had her legs up on the wooden crossbar beneath the dais) doing her best impression of "thoughtful", instead of bored. Coney Island Councilman Dominic Recchia didn't bother feigning contemplation. He wore a sneer of contempt for the public.

Queens Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. became immersed in his laptop after a testy exchange in which he set legendary former Councilman Henry Stern straight on what his daddy, former Speaker Peter Vallone, thought about term limits. Said Junior to the stately septuaganarian: "I respect you, but you gotta get out more."

Manhattan Councilman Robert Jackson had a similarly decorous exchange with a Democratic political consultant named Steve Kramer, who had vowed that if the Council extended term limits "we will come after you." Jackson, taking the general threat very personally, launched into an angry tirade which concluded with some permutation of George Bush's "Bring It On!" I was too stunned to copy it down verbatim, but Jackson barked something like "bring it" or "you can bring it on up here".

Yeah. Classy.

For the opposition crowd, Brooklyn Councilwoman Letitia James was the star of the night. She openly applauded passionate anti-extension testimony, despite admonitions from Coucilman Felder not to do so, and delivered a compelling speech slamming the Mayor's record on caring for low-income and minority families.

On the Council's side of the table, the only other moment that resonated with me was a point Minority Leader James Oddo (R - Staten Island) brought up to dispell the notion that deciding the issue in a special election refendum wouldn't represent the will of the people. Oddo reminded that he had first been elected in a special election, as had many of his colleagues, including Tish James (who was seated beside him), and, of course, Council Speaker Christine Quinn (who wasn't there). "Is there an asterisk next to my name?" asked Oddo rhetorically.

All in all, the hearing was predictably disappointing. After the marquis testimonies were given (i.e. the ones by big-name politicians), the Council Members demonstrated little interest in asking the real people of New York any questions.

Just like the digital clock on the wall counting down each person's two minutes to testify, Felder and the rest of the Council knew that time would soon run out on the public.

And then they'd be free to stop pretending they care, and just go back to doing whatever they want.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

So, it's four o'clock and I'm off to testify at City Hall. I hope I get a chance to speak. But, either way, here is the testimony I intend to present this evening. I'm anxious to see how Simcha Felder will react.

Ladies and gentlemen:

My name is Morgan Pehme and I am a proud resident of Greenpoint, Brooklyn. As I am sure that many of my fellow New Yorkers will eloquently express my rationale for opposing this Council’s move to extend term limits for its own benefit, I won’t waste our time in redundancy. If you care to read my reasons, you may do so on my blog: www.brooklynoptimist.com.

What I have come today to say is this: Shame on you, Council Members!

Less than two years ago, this body voted itself a $22,000 pay raise. I want to know if you intend to roll back this raise when you vote yourselves four more years in office? Or, perhaps, you think you should be rewarded for your outrageous and ongoing slush fund scandal?

I almost have more respect for those of you who have publicly admitted that you intend to vote “yes” on the proposed extension, than for those of you who still pretend to be undecided. At least, those of you voting “yes” have the gumption to admit your contempt for we, the people.

As for those of you who are allegedly undecided, what arguments remain for you to hear? Your silence is deafening. What it says it that you lack the courage to lead and that you cower from your convictions.

Your silence has proven you don’t deserve another term in office.

We, New Yorkers, aren’t stupid, though you often treat us as if we were. We know that you are shamelessly calculating your self-interest at this moment, trying to balance whether the backroom deal you have been offered outweighs the political fallout of betraying your constituents.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Before I lay out exactly why you should be against the City Council's move to extend term limits without your say, let me start by putting two common misconceptions to rest.

The movement against extending term limits is not about whether Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job in office. For the record, I think that he has. And if the City Council puts extending term limits on the ballot, as I believe they must, then you will have still have the opportunity to re-elect our Mayor if the measure passes.

So many New Yorkers are confused that this is an anti-Bloomberg initiative because that is how the Mayor has shrewdly framed the issue. Since the majority of New Yorkers feel pretty positively about him, miscasting the debate as “Bloomberg vs. No Bloomberg” twists the odds in favor of his agenda.

Second, this is not a debate about whether term limits are good. Personally, in an ideal world, I would be opposed to term limits, because the people should have the right to vote for whomever they want, for as long as they want. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. But I’ll get to that in a moment.

The real question about extending term limits is whether our City Council should be allowed to run roughshod over the will of the people, just so they can keep their jobs for another four years. When you understand that this is what's at stake, then there is no good reason to support or stay undecided on the Council's backroom deal to extend term limits.

Twice in the past 15 years, the people of New York City have voted for term limits. The 1993 ballot initiative that resulted in term limits was introduced by Ron Lauder as a response to a vast corruption scandal that rocked then-Mayor Koch's Administration. Lauder's thinking was that the power of incumbency was so imbalanced in favor of our elected officials that they felt secure in abusing their positions for personal gain, because they knew it was virtually impossible for them to get voted out of office. In other words, the reason for term limits was to keep our politicians honest.

The last Council election in 2004 once again demonstrated the power of iron-clad incumbency. In the entire city, the only Council Member voted out of office was Allan Jennings of Queens, a guy whose private and public behavior was so bizarre (and allegedly criminal) it verged on insanity. Even then, it took a former Councilman unseated only because of the City's term limit laws - Thomas White Jr. - to beat him.

The current class of City Council Members has done little to convince the public that the Council has reformed its ways since Lauder's 1993 initiative. On the contrary, under Speaker Christine Quinn's leadership, the entire Council has come under investigation from the U.S. Attorney's Office for one of the worst scandals in recent City history. Uncovered earlier this year, the "slush fund scandal" exposed the Council's longstanding practice of funneling millions of dollars of taxpayer money into phantom organizations, so that the funds could later be doled out by the Speaker for political favors. Because the Council's previous bylaws allowed its Members to hide who made the specific requests to pour money into these dummy organizations, we don't know just how many Council Members should be directly implicated in these illegal transactions. Only the Federal investigation currently underway by U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia can tell us. But what we do know about is some of the public fall out, like the fact that two top aides to Brooklyn Councilman Kendall Stewart were indicted for their role in the scandal and that Speaker Quinn has hired a criminal attorney at taxpayer expense to defend herself. The entire Council as a body has also retained Quinn's lawyer.

The reason I bring up the Council is that it is often forgotten that the price for keeping around our popular mayor is another four years for the majority of our Council Members. Many of us like Bloomberg, but you would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to go to bat for extending term limits just to keep our Council Members in office.

Anyone, that is, except for our Council Members.

Neither myself, nor almost anyone else in opposition to the Council's move to extend term limits is arguing that a third-term for our elected officials would necessarily be bad. What we are advocating for is that the people of New York decide this issue.

It is a fundamental conflict of interest for our Council Members to vote to rewrite our City's laws when they are the sole beneficiaries of that change. And, for those of you who question my characterization of our Council Member's motives, keep in mind that the Mayor has made it abundantly clear that he intends the third-term to be applicable only to the current crop of term-limited elected officials. That's the main reason why the few Council Members who aren't term-limited in 2009 are so incensed. They stand to gain nothing for playing ball with the Mayor and Speaker Quinn.

The Council is moving quickly to vote on extending term limits, so that more New Yorkers don't have a chance to understand what's really going on. They've reduced the entire public discourse on this event to a slim two-week window and arranged for only a single, solitary public hearing on the issue – and only in Manhattan. By comparison, when the City was considering banning horse-drawn carriages, there were nine public hearings on the bill. Imagine how many there would be if we wanted to build a new highway.

In any case, if the Council were willing to put term limits on the ballot for us to decide, this whole debate would be over in an instant.

But the Mayor and Speaker Quinn know that their scheme doesn't stand a chance if the voters get their say. They argue that a ballot referendum would be undemocratic because so few voters participate in special elections that the outcome of a vote just on term limits wouldn't really be representative of public opinion.

This is simply not true.

The real reason is that they don't trust the voters to do their bidding. They know that if we vote their initiative will fail and then they'd be out of a job. Twice in the last 15, New Yorkers have voted in favor of term limits. Recent polls show there is no reason to suspect that the third time would be any different. In fact, what Bloomberg and Quinn secretly understand is that generally only the most passionate and informed voters tend to show up for special elections – precisely the voters they won't be able to dupe with their self-serving propaganda.

A lot of fear has been used to manipulate us. Above all, we've been threatened that only New York City's richest man has the business skills to pull us back from the brink of economic collapse. Maybe. That's why I'm for the Council letting the people decide if we want to keep Bloomberg in office.

But until we get the chance to vote, I ask you to put your personal feelings aside about Mayor Bloomberg. Were you among the legions of New Yorkers outraged when Mayor Giuliani announced after 9/11 he wanted to stick around for another term, because only he could keep us safe? Are you a New Yorker who would have rioted in the streets and stormed the White House if President Bush had insisted on a third term? When we change the rules to benefit a good man, we also benefit those with the worst of intentions.

Share with your friends the real reasons to oppose the Council's attempt to deny us our voice. And make sure to call your Council Members to let them know they work for you, not for themselves.

Bruce Ratner has announced that a recent court ruling would again delay the construction of his massive, community-eviscerating Atlantic Yards project - this time until 2011.

The total projected cost of Forest City Ratner's plans has exploded beyond its original estimates and now, with the economic crisis, Ratner is having a tough time borrowing money to finance his complex. The lucrative naming rights deal with Barclays Capital for the Nets' arena also appears in jeopardy.

This brings the number of "no" votes to 19, "yes" votes to 15, with 17 still undecided. In order for the measure to pass, 26 of 51 Council Members must vote "yes".

Como's vote is as stiking an indication of where the majority of the public stands on this issue as any opinion poll released so far. Como is currently locked in a fierce primary for his seat against Democrat Elizabeth Crowley, who he edged out by only 38 votes in a special election in March of this year. Since he is again squaring off against Crowley this November, it is clear that Como thinks voting "no" on the extension is what he must do to satisfy his constituents and hold his seat.

It is interesting to note that Como's district is traditionally Republican, so the fact that his constituents don't support extending term limits shows how far Mayor Bloomberg's once blue-chip stock has fallen with his former party since he switched his affiliation to Independent in June 2007. Como's decision makes him the second Republican to stray from the Mayor's side, following Staten Island Councilman Vincent Ignizio's vote. The only other Republican in the Council, Staten Island's James Oddo, remains undecided.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Last Friday, this incredible story from blogger Gary Tilzer on the website Room Eight uncovered a staggering scandal that exposes shocking connections between our City's lobbyists, political consultants, and elected officials.

In his piece, which is written as an open letter to U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia, Tilzer calls on Garcia to launch a criminal investigation into the Council for letting lobbyists infiltrate City Hall and dictate the legislative agendas of the Council Members they got elected.

This piece blew the Optimist's mind and so thoroughly crushed the lingering remnants of respect he held for the City Council that it threatened to make the Optimist, well, not optimistic any more about City politics. But I will endure. I remain optimistic, because I know that there is always a possibility (albeit faint) that extending term limits will fail or that we will finally vote these clowns out of office (albeit even fainter).

THIS ARTICLE IS A MUST-READ. It is so important that I held off writing about it until this week, because I didn't want to just let it make a rumbling for a few days and then slip out of the news cycle into oblivion.

I encourage all of my readers to forward it to their friends, write to the mainstream media to pick it up on TV and in the major papers, and call U.S. Attorney Garcia to demand he investigates the thick web of corruption that covers City Hall.

This is no joke. If you aren't outraged, you haven't read this article.

The Brooklyn Optimist is a big fan of the HOPE Program, one of our City's best nonprofits. For those of you who are unfamiliar with its exemplary work, HOPE is a career development program in downtown Brooklyn that has helped New Yorkers living in poverty find meaningful jobs for the past 25 years.

Tomorrow at St. Francis College, HOPE will honor a number of the distinguished graduates of its program. Many of the graduates will be recognized for having successfully maintained employment for years now, and even gaining promotions to higher-paying positions.

Air America radio host and Daily News columnist Errol Louis will be the keynote speaker at the graduation. Louis, who has distinguished himself as a strong progressive voice for the City, wrote an excellent article in April lauding HOPE as "a splendid charity" and adding that "The [City] Council should spend less time swiping public dollars and more time wisely investing in Hope and programs like it that tackle the city's toughest problems - and succeed."

Louis will be joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Ron Chernow, who will present the Valerie Chernow Volunteer Award (named in memory of his wife) to an outstanding HOPE volunteer.

But don't just come to the graduation to see its famous guests. "The most exciting part of this ceremony is seeing how proud our graduates are of their accomplishments," enthuses Barbara Edwards Delsman, Executive Director of HOPE.

The 12th Annual Gowanus Artists Studios Tour (A.G.A.S.T.) runs this weekend from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. both Saturday and Sunday. This free event is open to the public and presents Brooklynites with an excellent opportunity to peer into the imaginations of their most creative neighbors.

Among the artists whose works will be on display is my fellow blogger and Brooklyn painter Michael Sorgatz (his work is pictured above). His studio is one of many at the collaborative Brooklyn Artist's Gym (BAG) at 168 7th St. between 2nd and 3rd Avenues.

If painting is not your thing, A.G.A.S.T. promises many other artists of all media who will be personally presenting their creations in their intimate work environments. The studios span the Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, and Boerum Hill neighborhoods. For a complete tour map and directions, click here.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Apparently at the Sikorski Meat Market on Manhattan Avenue in Greenpoint "hot kielbasa" was a code word for "cocaine". No reports yet on whether anyone mistakenly ordered nose candy from the Polish-Dominican drug ring (you don't read about that cartel every day!) hoping for spicy sausage, but twenty-six suspects are under arrest by the Feds.

How effective was Council Speaker Christine Quinn's announcement that she would be supporting Mayor Bloomberg on extending term limits? Well, after Quinn's announcement yesterday, Brooklyn Councilman Mathieu Eugene (D-Kensington, Prospect-Lefferts, Ditmas Park) decided AGAINST siding with the Speaker's self-serving agenda.

Looks like Quinn's efforts to marshal her troops isn't going as well as planned. Quinn needs 26 votes in the Council to steamroll over the will of the voters, but by her own count there are currently only 15 votes in favor, 17 opposed (make that 18, counting Eugene), and now 18 undecided.

Relying upon shameless cognitive dissonance, Quinn insisted that there has been no “horse-trading or arm-twisting” involved in the massive effort to lobby Council Members for their support. But the public statements of pressured Council Members, clergymen, union leaders, and a host of other influential New Yorkers refute Quinn's fictitious claims.

Though I could not reach Councilman Eugene for comment this morning, I have a sneaking suspicion that the calls that so many of you have been making to Brooklyn Council Members played a part in Eugene's decision.

Congratulations, Optimist readers! And thank you, Councilman Eugene!

Attention Council Members David Yassky, Simcha Felder, Sara Gonzalez, Michael Nelson, and Kendall Stewart, the eyes of Brooklyn are upon you. It's time for you to step up and stand with the people.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Anyone paying attention knew how City Council Speaker Christine Quinn stood on the Mayor's scheme to extend term limits long before Bloomberg formally announced his intentions. Today, Quinn used the political cover of a slow Sunday news cycle to make public her embarrassing position.

Surprise, surprise. She's for staying Speaker another four years.Once upon a time, Quinn would have said "no" to extending term limits. Almost three years ago, she roared into the second most powerful job in the City with all the promise that being both New York City's first female and first LGBT Council Speaker carried with it. She was a darling of the City's progressives - a dynamic figure that would set the City free of the pro-establishment tilt that had long characterized the Council. The day she got into office the buzz that she would be New York's next Mayor began.

In short, Quinn's dreams of Gracie Mansion fell apart. She could never run for Mayor now that a major investigation and the word "scandal" hung heavily over her head. The end of her Council term in 2009 was shaping up to be the end of her political career.

Enter Mayor Bloomberg. The Mayor's proposal to save his own job was a godsend for Quinn. Four more years would mean that Quinn could have a chance at redemption - a chance for people to forget. If she could escape the slush fund scandal unscathed (I wonder if Mayor Mike might help her here?), four years from now she might once again be a viable candidate for mayor. Gosh darn it to heck, it worked good enough for John McCain to win his party's nomination for President twenty years after the Keating Five scandal almost sunk him.

Four years from now expect to hear Mayoral candidate Quinn argue that all is forgotten. Whether it will be is up to government investigators and, of course, you to decide.

Queens Councilman Tony Avella is on top of it! Only a few hours after receiving an open letter from 35 Brooklyn Democratic County Committee Members to the City Council opposing the extension of term limits without voter input, Avella wrote back, saying he agrees with us.

Avella, a declared candidate for New York City Mayor, who has pledged to stay in the race no matter how his colleagues decide to vote on term limits, quickly demonstrated a responsiveness to the constituents of Brooklyn that our own Council Members have yet to show.

Thank you for your October 10th email indicating your support for term limits. Rest assured, I completely agree with you.

The people of New York City have indicated not once, but twice their firm support for two-four year terms for City officials. Their wishes could not have been clearer.

I believe it is a betrayal of the public trust if the Mayor and the City Council vote to overturn/extend term limits. By campaigning for public office, we made a covenant with the people that we accepted term limits – eight years and out. Any attempt to amend the term limits law breaks that covenant.

I have already publicly stated that even if they succeed, I will not serve a third term – I will not break the covenant with the voters.

Changing the law to allow anyone particular person to stay in office, not matter how popular that person maybe, is simply wrong. That is the day we take a step towards dictatorship.

I will vehemently oppose any attempt to overturn/extend the term limits law.

In order to stop this action, I just introduced in the City Council, Resolution #1640, which basically asks the State Legislature to step in and mandate that a public referendum be conducted to change the term limits law. Attached below is a more complete description/explanation of my bill.

Sincerely,

Tony Avella

Council Member

Reso. 1640/2008 – Term Limits Mandatory Referendum Resolution

Council Member Avella’s resolution calls upon the State legislature to adopt legislation amending the State Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL) to give the City the authority to provide in its Charter that any change in the City’s term limits law must be subject to voter referendum. Even if the City fails to take action to change the Charter, once the State acts their action governs what the City is required to do – in other words mandate a public referendum.

The State MHRL, Article 3 §23, and the New York City Charter, Chapter 2 §38, both set forth a list of actions that can only be accomplished by voter referendum. This resolution will ask the New York State Legislature to amend the MHRL to add to this list of actions that require mandatory voter referendum any action which amends, in any manner, term limits laws.

Council Member Avella’s Reso. 1640 is phrased to “give the City authority to provide in its Charter that any change in the City’s term limits law must be subject to referendum” but the practical effect of the State’s requested action would be to amend the MHRL which would affect term limits laws from all municipalities throughout the state.

A Resolution to the State is the only way in which the City can effectively change its own Charter provisions on this issue, since the state law preempts local law in this area. Therefore the State must act first before the city can amend its own Charter provision and any local law attempting to change the Charter on this issue would be ineffective before the State gives the City the authority to act.

As a matter of public policy the City Council should not be vested with the sole power to extend the length of its members terms by legislation alone and it is therefore necessary to amend these sections of the Charter in order to preserve a balance between the right of the Council to carry out its legislative functions and the right of voters to have their expressed will carried out by the legislature.

But still the City Council and Mayor Bloomberg are less than two weeks away from pulling off the most shameful power grab in the history of New York. This is the time for all New Yorkers to stand up and save our City from the naked ambition of our elected officials.

Here's what you can do right now that's quick, easy andeffective: Call Our Council Members! Below you'll find a list of all of the City's Council Members, their contact information, and where they stand on the issue. If we don't all work together to apply pressure to the Council Members, who are undecided or support the extension of term limits, then NO ONE WILL!

Forward this blog post to all of your friends and urge them to take action! I know that we're all wrapped up with getting Barack Obama elected, but to bring about the change we need in America we all have to do our part in our own community. Spread the word!

Thursday, October 9, 2008

An Open Letter from 35 Members of the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee to the New York City Council Opposing the Extension of Term Limits

cc: Mayor Mike BloombergCouncil Speaker Christine QuinnRonald Lauder

Dear Council Members:

What if President Bush had decided to amend the Constitution so that he could run for a third term? Surely, since 47 out of 51 of you are Democrats, this notion must be pretty frightening. Yet it is this concern that best sums up why we oppose the proposal before you to extend term limits.

Whether term limits are good for New York City is not an issue we care to argue. In the past 15 years, the voters of our City have twice decided that philosophical debate for themselves. In fact, it is as a result of their decision that most of you owe your current jobs. But now that you are on the verge of having to relinquish your power to a new generation of leaders, many of you are having second thoughts.

Surely, you can’t expect voters to interpret your motivations to extend term limits as anything but a self-serving power grab. Every dictator in world history faced with term limits has argued at the last minute of their reign that the political climate is so serious the people must keep them in power or else fear ruin. Well, New York City didn’t buckle when Mayor Giuliani tried to stay in office after 9/11. Now, we ask you to show the same courage and stand up to Mayor Bloomberg.

The people of New York need your help as City Council Members to protect our vote. The major newspapers, so many of our elected officials, and even Ron Lauder, once the foremost champion of term limits, have all abandoned us or cut backroom deals. You’re the last hope of the little guy. If you really think that New Yorkers want this change, then put Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal back on the ballot for referendum and let us decide.

We 35 members of the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee ran for office to be the voice of our neighbors and our communities. We thought you ran for office for the same reason. Here’s your chance to prove us right.

Since Wasilla, Alaska leapt onto the national stage six weeks ago alongside its adorable former mayor, I have wondered what this tiny town was like. In my mind's eye, I pictured a friendly, folksy enclave in the midst of a wild, breathtaking expanse of frozen tundra.

Apparently, I was wrong. From the looks of Wasilla, it's just another racist hick stronghold with a fondness for drinking and crystal meth. Judge for yourself:

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Despite the recent deluge of articles about Mayor Bloomberg and the Council's scheme to extend term limits, one significant consequence of the proposed change has been carelessly overlooked.

City officials won't be the only ones making out on this backroom deal. Our Statewide politicians will see big dividends too.

Why does Governor Paterson favor doing away with term limits? Let's see. Do you think that it could have anything to do with Mayor Bloomberg being the only candidate who could beat him in 2010?

State Senators and Assembly Members across the five boroughs will breathe a sigh of relief the day the Council extends term limits. Why? Just ask longtime incumbent State Senators Serph Maltese and Frank Padavan from Queens. Both of them are locked in tense general election campaigns, because Council Members Joe Addabbo Jr. and Jim Gennaro thought they had to go looking for new jobs now that their time in the Council was up.

Yes, the issue of the Democrats taking control of the Senate is an indisputable catalyst too, but, if this aim were first and foremost for Addabbo and Gennaro, how come they didn't run for these seats in 2006? The Democrats wanted the Senate then too.

For the past couple of years, our Assembly Members and State Senators have secretly feared the same fate as Maltese and Padavan. And don't think this is just a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Our City Council Members, for the most part, are ambitious men and women, for whom retiring into the private sector (read: obscurity) has little charm. Do you not think that there are plenty of Council Members eyeing up their fellow Democrats' seats?

What about Bronx Councilman Miguel Martinez? When Martinez announced his bid to run for Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat's seat this past June, the City Room headline in The Times read "Assembly Primary to Match Friends Turned Rivals". In the article, Jonathan Hicks decribes Martinez and Espaillat's former rapport "as a big brother and little brother relationship — or at the very least political mentor and mentee". What changed? The lust for power.

Strong political friendships routinely disintegrate when they are no longer convenient for one of the parties to maintain. How many other City Council Members have their sights set on a seat currently occupied by a "mentor"? We won't find out until 2013 if term limits are extended.

If they are, expect a number of longtime lovefests to start dissolving around 2011. That will give the Council Member just enough time to forge the track record of indignation necessary to justify his or her challenge of a one-time pal.

Our State Senators and Assembly Members aren't stupid, especially when it comes to calculating how they're going to stay in office. They know that the only challenge that could likely topple their otherwise iron-clad incumbencies would come from someone with the name recognition and donor base of a fellow elected official.

As long as our Citywide officals stay put, so too will our Statewide electeds. You can be sure that everyone in Albany has their eyes (and their influence) firmly focused on City Hall.